Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Delterius]

People who play battle mages are boring bethesdatard munchkins who have no love for challenge and no sense of style

Or the remaining vast ocean of RPGs that allow for hybrid classes.

Agree on the sense of style, tho.

 

[Excidium]

People who play battle mages are boring bethesdatard munchkins who have no love for challenge and no sense of style
Real mages wear dresses-- er fuck I mean, robes. Robes.

So don't take the feats that let you wield swords and wear armor? I'm failing to see a problem here.

Why do you even need a feat to do those things? SAAAWYEEEER

It's funny that people get all worked up over wizards with swords while the design of the monk or barbarian is accepted.

 

[Shadenuat]

So don't take the feats that let you wield swords and wear armor? I'm failing to see a problem here.

I already had a conversation like that at Obsidian's with walls of text proe and countra ("mages with swords" or somethin) and I don't want to start another one; in the end heavy restrictions on class is a system you either enjoy or not. I enjoy it and want one in a game which is supposedly an IE successor.

monk

You should have seen the monk threads at Obsidians, there were wars

 

[Delterius]

Pretty sure you can circumvent class restrictions in the IE games, especially the one where single classed mages aren't good in melee.

 

[Excidium]

So don't take the feats that let you wield swords and wear armor? I'm failing to see a problem here.

I already had a conversation like that at Obsidian's with walls of text proe and countra ("mages with swords" or somethin) and I don't want to start another one; in the end heavy restrictions on class is a system you either enjoy or not. I enjoy it and want one in a game which is supposedly an IE successor.

Same effect can be achieved in IE games. The difference is that in IE you go the dual or multi-class route, in PE you pick the feats.

 

[Shadenuat]

Same effect can be achieved in IE games

Depends on the game, it's in BG2 where monstrosities like kensai/mage came to be, in BG1 multi classing was very tame.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't think a mage will need to pick feats/talents to simply use swords and armor, but he probably won't be very good with them without the proper talents. I think that in general, PE will rely to a great extent on passive talents and class abilities, as a replacement for the "inherent" differences between the classes in D&D (THAC0/BaB progression, hit dice, etc)

 

[Delterius]

Same effect can be achieved in IE games

Depends on the game, it's in BG2 where monstrosities like kensai/mage came to be, in BG1 multi classing was very tame.

Still not about a rigid class system, which the IE games didn't have, but about class balance. A single and simple act of power gaming shouldn't humiliate most every other class in the game. But that sort of thing is probably planned in Sawyer's opus. It's Sawyer for christ's sake.

 

[Gurkog]

Last few pages:

"ZOMG! Someone is not playing their characters the same way as me! They are doing it wrong and must stop immediately!"
vs.
"Stop being a retard, because you can play your pathetic shit mage however you want and that includes being a fragile little fuckwad. Get over yourself and find something legitimate to bitch about."

Am I doing this right?

 

[Logic_error]

Am I doing this right?

Pardon me, but that is not what the real complaint is. The entire idea of a party based game is structured on the assumption that individual party members have individual weaknesses and strengths and non-overlapping roles. If it were NOT so I would just have 6 wizards and get done with it.

 

[Infinitron]

Individual weaknesses and strengths? Yes. Non-overlapping roles? Not necessarily. These two things are not the same.

 

[Logic_error]

That is why I listed both, maybe?

 

[Roguey]

Lotta posts about preconceptions the past couple of pages.

Anyone remember this dual-warhammer wielding jerk http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Azar_Javed

That's a spellcaster? No way. He's not emaciated. My youth-to-adulthood nerd fantasy...

 

[imweasel]

Pardon me, but that is not what the real complaint is. The entire idea of a party based game is structured on the assumption that individual party members have individual weaknesses and strengths and non-overlapping roles. If it were NOT so I would just have 6 wizards and get done with it.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[The Bishop]

This is why I accept abstractions of class systems - it's not that wizard can't grab a sword, he can, but it's pointless, because when facing real fighter, he'll face these sorts of fanatics of martial combat.

It's only pointless if
a) exceptional and dedicated (real) fighters are the only kind of opponent wizard will ever face,
b) wizard decided to abandon all his other talents in favor of martial skill,
c) wizard's party decided to watch him duking it out and not help.

Your point is that somebody who fanatically trains in some field is very likely to outperform those only doing it from time to time, which is kind of obvious to begin with. But claiming that only fanatics are able to be useful with their skills would be pushing it quite a bit. As per your example, there's little doubt that a dedicated 'real' fighter would beat a reasonably good part-timer, but would he beat two such opponents just as easily? Three? How about another 'real' fighter with a part-timer helping him out? Real fighting isn't often about dueling, and in those kind of circumstances even some martial training can go a long way.

In medieval times English archers were mostly yeomen or peasants, training with a bow for a couple of days a week. Knights on the other hand trained and fought all their lives. There's little doubt a knight would win a duel, but did knights aways win if they had a battle in the field? Not always.

 

[tuluse]

Agincourt is a bad example of saying peasants make a good army. English and Welsh longbowmen trained from about 7 or 8 to build up the upper body strength necessary to use said longbows.

There are better examples of rabble taking on professional armies and winning.

 

[Logic_error]

Those were the marksmen. Which the real Long-bowmen in battle weren't.

You need the muscle strength when hunting for game or accurate shots with high velocity. In Agincourt it was neither that mattered but required was rather the spread in the battlefield. In fact the long-bowmen were more proficient with melee weapons than being sharpshooters.

 

[Cynic]

I don't like the blurring of class restrictions. There has to be some sort of difference between the classes OR there must be some sort of penalty for doing things outside of class restrictions. Perhaps mages using heavy armour or large weapons cannot use certain schools of magic.

Aside from D&D's dual/multi classing rules, Final Fantasy Tactics got around this in an interesting way, where you would have one main class and one secondary class. Of course you could become incredibly over powered by grinding, but a level cap could prevent that from being the case. Then you would have to choose how much Mage you want and how much Fighter for example.

I think there are lots of ways to allow for interesting builds, but blurring the lines completely will just lead to crap combat with no distinction from character to character.

 

[Infinitron]

It's about specializations, not restrictions. Do what you want, but others might be better than you.

That's actually more dangerous to the player, since trying to advance a character in a role he's not suited for might end up permanently gimping him. With restrictions, you never face that danger.

 

[Gurkog]

Wizards do not have access to the same abilities as the melee classes so they will not perform the same in CQC despite wearing the same gear. This is not complicated.

 

[Sensuki]

I don't think a mage will need to pick feats/talents to simply use swords and armor, but he probably won't be very good with them without the proper talents. I think that in general, PE will rely to a great extent on passive talents and class abilities, as a replacement for the "inherent" differences between the classes in D&D (THAC0/BaB progression, hit dice, etc)

Yeah pretty much.

For those that don't already know, all classes are using unified advancement mechanics, and the difference between classes throughout advancement will be the difference at level 1 + class abilities and talents.

The gulf of attack difference between a Wizard and Fighter at level 1 will be based on 1) Character Attributes and 2) The fighter's (free) bonus to melee accuracy

This is essentially the same as D&D but instead of the Fighter advancing at +1 per level and the Wizard at +1 per 2 levels, the advancement will be the same.

If you stack a Wizard in armor and have them wade into Melee with a sword, they will not be terrible at it, but not as good as a melee class character. If spells exist that augment this function however (like Flaming Sword, Phantom Blade, Tenser's Transformation etc etc), then you never know.

 

[Cynic]

It's about specializations, not restrictions. Do what you want, but others might be better than you.

That's actually more dangerous to the player, since trying to advance a character in a role he's not suited for might end up permanently gimping him. With restrictions, you never face that danger.

Hmm okay that sounds alright actually.

 

[hiver]

It is.

 

[Excidium]

That's actually more dangerous to the player, since trying to advance a character in a role he's not suited for might end up permanently gimping him.

How very un-Sawyerian

 

[Sensuki]

It's probably not gonna matter much on any difficult except Hard or higher.

recent quote stated that Normal diff will be BG1/IWD1 level; Hard will be BG2/IWD2 (on core rules).

You can send a Wizard into melee with a sword, but he would probs be better off sitting at the back casting spells.